​The young mothers trapped in a cycle of having babies removed

​The young mothers trapped in a cycle of having babies removed

The number of newborns taken away by family courts has increased 2.5 times in five years. Often cases involve the same vulnerable women, yet they get little help to break the pattern of repeated proceedings

Only one in 10 babies removed at birth is ever returned to its biological mother.
Photograph: Alamy

“August 2010. June 2011. June 2012. April 2014.” Chloe reels off the birthdays of her sons. All four babies were removed from her care by children’s services at birth or soon after.

Aged just 16 when she had her first child, Chloe*, now 22, had been in local authority care since she was 11. She cannot count how many times she was moved in foster placements. Her sons were all fathered by the same violent man; he tried to kill her on one occasion, and controlled her so effectively she found it impossible to envisage a life on her own. Distraught after her first child was removed at a few months old, Chloe went back to her boyfriend. The abuse restarted and she was trapped.

Adoption is a traumatic upheaval and our care systems aren't helping

Read more

It’s a pattern repeated frequently. But the state is failing to acknowledge or help the vulnerable women who are repeatedly traumatised by the loss of a child, often at a very young age, says Prof Karen Broadhurst, of Lancaster University. Broadhurst has recently released the latest set of findings from her population profiling study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that reveals the scale of women’s repeat involvement in public law care proceedings in England.

Analysis of cases involving 43,541 birth mothers and 85,452 children revealed that in five years the number of newborns removed increased two and a half times, from 802 babies in 2008 to 2,018 in 2013. And, in new information released to the Guardian, it showed that only one in 10 of those babies ever returned to its birth mother. This compares with all children in care proceedings, where about four in 10 end up in the care of the state.

So if a woman loses her baby at birth, the odds of being reunited are slim. If a mother is aged between 16 and 19 when she is first involved in care proceedings, she has a one in three chance of the state applying to remove a subsequent baby if she comes before the family court again.

For young mothers – some still children themselves – it is a worrying picture, says Broadhurst. “Having a child removed on your journey to your own adulthood is a major and unusual event, so it will be a significant obstacle to your own adulthood. In the shorter term, it will seriously impact on your wellbeing, and long term, to your social and economic functioning. There’s potential for young parents to recover if there is support, but in our interviews the women didn’t report getting any proper professional help.”

Chloe says she got no help to cope with her grief each time a baby was taken, and no support to leave her abusive boyfriend. (Picture posed by model.) Photograph: kolvenbach/Alamy

Some believe that a woman so traumatised by her experiences in childhood that she cannot safely parent a first baby will never recover to become a good parent in the future. However, Dr Freda Gardner, a consultant psychologist and expert witness to the family court, doesn’t agree.

“There are parents who have sustained profound trauma and they frequently develop a number of maladaptive coping strategies such as dependence on drugs and alcohol and the difficulties are then extremely complex. In the absence of family support they are unable ... to provide parenting and care within [realistic] timescales for their child,” she says. But, Gardner continues, for other traumatised mothers, help is possible within appropriate timescales for their child. “These parents have often developed some resilience and for them the birth of their child can act as a catalyst to engage with support and intervention – if it is available.”

Such treatment, she says, is “without doubt” far less expensive than repeated local authority intervention, assessment and care proceedings. “This economic consideration only adds to the tragedy of all this,” she says.

In a series of interviews with 72 women who had experienced the loss of more than one child, Broadhurst notes that in the period after a child was permanently removed there were suicide attempts, increased drug and alcohol misuse and, on occasion, women committed their first major crime, including arson. “It might be setting fire to their own house, or to a mental health ward, and it indicates serious emotional distress,” she says. They then add a criminal record to the difficulties they have to overcome in trying to convince the family court they have changed.

“These women have welfare and human rights entitlements in themselves, that are not being met.”

Claire Mason

Chloe says that each time a baby was taken, she got no help to cope with her grief. She finally got support to leave her abusive boyfriend only last year, when she was referred to Action For Change, which offers intensive support to parents who have had a child removed.

Stigma sticks to women who have lost a child to the state, Chloe says, recalling the birth of her third child when social workers and the healthcare professionals attending her showed little compassion. “They literally cut the cord and then a woman took him straight out. I never even got to see him or hold him,” she says. “I was told by the hospital to leave half an hour after I’d had him, and I haemorrhaged.”

In court, Chloe recalls, a judge said social workers had breached her son’s human rights, “but nothing ever got followed up”. Broadhurst said her research team’s search for published studies on good practice around removal at birth, found virtually nothing – a significant findingconsidering the human rights issues raised by this practice.

Claire Mason, the researcher who interviewed birth mothers, says many reported they didn’t get the psychological therapy recommended in evidence placed before the family court, because they didn’t meet the threshold to access adult mental health services.

Mason says the deterioration in women’s overall functioning once they walk out of the courtroom at the final hearing with no right to see their child, or very limited contact, is of great concern. “These women have welfare and human rights entitlements that are not being met.”

Adoption and child protection: are councils misusing a key part of the law?

Read more

The interviews aimed to explore what Mason calls “the hidden space” between the conclusion of court proceedings for baby number one, and the start of those for a subsequent child. Understanding what is happening in this gap is critical, says Broadhurst, because it is a precious period when useful work could be done – but isn’t. This is even more vital now that a legal ruling on a child’s permanent future must be made within 26 weeks. If a woman is offered support in this gap there is, Broadhurst says, a far greater opportunity for her to show evidence of having made significant changes to her life – without being in terror that she will again lose a loved and wanted baby.

The government’s Innovation Fund has funded a small pilot to help 30 such women for up to two years. Known as Early FDAC, it is an extension to the successful Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) programme, and is now seeking referrals of parents who face difficulties other than substance misuse. Early FDAC has opted to work with women in pregnancy and afterwards, even if their baby is removed.

The legal process is of particular concern to Broadhurst’s research team. Broadhurst contrasts the role of the UK family court with youth courts operating in some US states. These, she says, have an explicitly constructive, preventative and treatment-oriented approach that attempts to wrap support around a young person.

“For very young parents – and remember some of these mothers are legal minors – I don’t think the legal process in and around our family courts is tailored to their level of development or ability to grasp what’s going on,” she says. “It’s an alien process, in an alien language; they’re completely intimidated by it.”

Broadhurst says there is a need for a rethink of the family court. “Otherwise we’re spending a huge amount of money on gathering and testing evidence against parents, but the court process is so far removed from the life of that young mother, it becomes yet another element that actively compounds disadvantage – and undermines her ability to heal and build the skills to be a parent if and when another baby comes along.”